WILLIAM H. LESTER, JR., ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLEE

Fla. | 1966-09-14
No. 35214
THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, DREW, O’CONNELL, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur., ROBERTS, J., concurring specially.
190 So. 2d 307 Florida Supreme Court (1966) Caution
Cited by 5 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

The Florida Supreme Court dismissed an interlocutory appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction. The court reconsidered its prior denial of a motion to dismiss the appeal and determined it could not entertain the case under the relevant constitutional provision.


Holding

No, the Florida Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the interlocutory appeal.


Key Quotes

“this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain the interlocutory appeal herein under Section 4(2), Article V of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A.”

Establishes the basis for the court's decision to dismiss the appeal.

Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Appellants filed both a petition for writ of certiorari and a notice of interlocutory appeal concerning a decision by the District Court of Appeal. Th…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This matter is before this Court upon a petition for writ of certiorari and a notice of interlocutory appeal both directed to a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, filed January 26, 1966 (183 So.2d 589). The Court has this day entered its order denying the petition for certiorari and, in connection with the consideration of the jurisdictional power of this Court to entertain said writ of cer-tiorari, it has re-examined the record in the interlocutory appeal and has sua sponte reconsidered its order of May 2nd, 1966 denying the motion of appellee City of St. Petersburg to dismiss the appeal .and, upon such reconsideration, finds that this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain the interlocutory appeal herein under Section 4(2), Article V of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A. Thereupon, it is

Ordered that said appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed.

THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, DREW, O’CONNELL, CALDWELL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.

ROBERTS, J., concurring specially.

ROBERTS, Justice

(concurring specially) :

In my opinion the cause is reviewable by conflict certiorari. I agree this Court is without jurisdiction to review by appeal.

Concurrence
ROBERTS, Justice

ROBERTS, Justice

(concurring specially) :

In my opinion the cause is reviewable by conflict certiorari. I agree this Court is without jurisdiction to review by appeal.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Miller v. City OF Indian Harbour Beach, 453 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
    …ides that if the object of the ordinance is one about which reasonable men could find was fairly debatable as to reasonableness, then the ordinance will be upheld. Lester v. City of St. Petersburg, 183 So. 2d 589, 591 (Fla. 2d DCA) appeal dismissed, 190 So. 2d 307 (Fla.1966). See also Hardage v. City of Jacksonville Beach, 399 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 1st DCA), pet. for rev. denied, 411 So. 2d 382 (Fla.1981). However, these cases are inapposite to the instant ease as the lower court did not hold the ordinances whol…
  • Elias v. Elias, 152 So. 3d 749 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)
    …sband’s appeal of the trial court’s order determining the date of legal separation. Upon reconsideration and in conjunction with the facts as provided in the full record on appeal, we reverse our previous order. Cf. Lester v. City of St. Petersburg, 190 So. 2d 307 (Fla.1966); Am. Bridge v. Kromis, 555 So. 2d 1285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Hampton v. A. Duda & Sons, Inc., 511 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987). It is now clear that the trial court’s sale order was based upon its threshold determination of the date of l…
  • Lester v. City of ST. Petersburg, 192 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 1966)
    …Certiorari denied without opinion. 190 So. 2d 307.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw